Angela Cao v. BSI Financial Services, Incorporated, et al.

The Fifth Circuit vastly departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and sanc­ tioned the same by the lower court. Both the lower courts were asked and obligated yet refused to deter­ mine its jurisdiction and both acted beyond their au­ thority. This raises an alarming question on whether there is institutional discrimination against pro se lit­ igants or, on the other hand, whether there is consid­ erable partiality towards a party that has egregiously committed fraud. * >

1. Whether the lower courts acted ultra vires and the judgments below are void.

2. Whether petitioner was deprived of her statutory right to appeal and whether her substantial rights to due process and equal protection were violated.

3. Whether the lower courts’ orders constitute an ex­ pansion of judicial power beyond Article III, in vi­ olation of the separation of power doctrine.

4. Whether the lower courts’judgments are contrary to statute and precedents set by this Court and held in accordance by all other circuits.

5. Whether this case squarely presents the exigen­ cies to provide litigants stronger due process pro­ tections when courts act sua sponte; a highly debated question touched but not yet resolved by this Court. This case is a consolidation of two actions. When con­ solidation occurred, the first action had reached a stage QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued where core issues have been fully litigated and both parties sought resolution under the summary judg­ ment standard. The procedure used to determine the matters provided an opportunity for review and gave notice of strict waiver, upon the failure to object to a magistrate’s report. After none of the parties filed ob­ jections, the district court entered order fully adopting the report. Issue preclusion is applicable to this judg­ ment; it passed a decision on issues that were litigated and necessary to the judgment. The second action involves the same plaintiff and the defendants are in privity to the defendants in the first. Thus, issue preclusion for matters decided is applica­ ble in equal force and the principle of finality and re­ pose must be honored. In this case, the judgment was expressly relied upon and none of the parties challenged its validity or final­ ity. The district court was only required to consider the pleadings and apply the decided and undisputed facts to the law. However, in this extraordinary situa­ tion, the district court decided to take sua sponte ac­ tion to raise controversy, to reopen and modify matters previously determined and entered sua sponte sum­ mary judgment, nullifying the prior judgment without providing any basis for its jurisdiction to do so. The fi­ nal judgment was simultaneously entered without no­ tice or an opportunity to respond. On reconsideration, the district court was asked to provide basis for its au­ thority and it declined.